Cargando…

Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test

BACKGROUND: Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the ro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferrat, E, Le Breton, J, Veerabudun, K, Bercier, S, Brixi, Z, Khoshnood, B, Paillaud, E, Attali, C, Bastuji-Garin, S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3776987/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23989948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.476
_version_ 1782284920518868992
author Ferrat, E
Le Breton, J
Veerabudun, K
Bercier, S
Brixi, Z
Khoshnood, B
Paillaud, E
Attali, C
Bastuji-Garin, S
author_facet Ferrat, E
Le Breton, J
Veerabudun, K
Bercier, S
Brixi, Z
Khoshnood, B
Paillaud, E
Attali, C
Bastuji-Garin, S
author_sort Ferrat, E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the role for GPs in colonoscopy uptake. METHODS: We included all residents of a French district with positive FOBTs (n=2369) during one of the two screening rounds (2007–2010). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify individual and area-level predictors of delayed colonoscopy, no colonoscopy, and no information on colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 998 (45.2%) individuals underwent early, 989 (44.8%) delayed, and 102 (4.6%) no colonoscopy; no information was available for 119 (5.4%) individuals. Delayed colonoscopy was independently associated with first FOBT (odds ratio, (OR)), 1.61; 95% confidence interval ((95% CI), 1.16–2.25); and no colonoscopy and no information with first FOBT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02–3.97), FOBT kit not received from the GP (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67–3.14), and socio-economically deprived area (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.98–5.08). Colonoscopy uptake varied significantly across GPs (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Socio-economic factors, GP-related factors, and history of previous FOBT influenced colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT. Interventions should target GPs and individuals performing their first screening FOBT and/or living in socio-economically deprived areas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3776987
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37769872014-09-17 Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test Ferrat, E Le Breton, J Veerabudun, K Bercier, S Brixi, Z Khoshnood, B Paillaud, E Attali, C Bastuji-Garin, S Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the role for GPs in colonoscopy uptake. METHODS: We included all residents of a French district with positive FOBTs (n=2369) during one of the two screening rounds (2007–2010). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify individual and area-level predictors of delayed colonoscopy, no colonoscopy, and no information on colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 998 (45.2%) individuals underwent early, 989 (44.8%) delayed, and 102 (4.6%) no colonoscopy; no information was available for 119 (5.4%) individuals. Delayed colonoscopy was independently associated with first FOBT (odds ratio, (OR)), 1.61; 95% confidence interval ((95% CI), 1.16–2.25); and no colonoscopy and no information with first FOBT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02–3.97), FOBT kit not received from the GP (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67–3.14), and socio-economically deprived area (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.98–5.08). Colonoscopy uptake varied significantly across GPs (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Socio-economic factors, GP-related factors, and history of previous FOBT influenced colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT. Interventions should target GPs and individuals performing their first screening FOBT and/or living in socio-economically deprived areas. Nature Publishing Group 2013-09-17 2013-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3776987/ /pubmed/23989948 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.476 Text en Copyright © 2013 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Ferrat, E
Le Breton, J
Veerabudun, K
Bercier, S
Brixi, Z
Khoshnood, B
Paillaud, E
Attali, C
Bastuji-Garin, S
Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title_full Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title_fullStr Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title_full_unstemmed Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title_short Colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
title_sort colorectal cancer screening: factors associated with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3776987/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23989948
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.476
work_keys_str_mv AT ferrate colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT lebretonj colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT veerabudunk colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT berciers colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT brixiz colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT khoshnoodb colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT paillaude colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT attalic colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest
AT bastujigarins colorectalcancerscreeningfactorsassociatedwithcolonoscopyafterapositivefaecaloccultbloodtest